IANA Considerations for Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Network Identifiers and Universal Address Formats
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-06

[Ballot comment]
In sections 4.1 and 4.2, the registrant provides a value of TBD1 in the registration request,
and IANA substitutes the assigned value for TBD1.  This is very clear but isn't quite right
if a single document requests multiple registrations.  In that case, the provided values would
also include TBD2, ..., TBDx. 

To be honest, I'm not sure if any readers would actually be confused and I can't think of a
better way to write the text myself.  If an obvious solution  comes to the author, that would
be great.  Otherwise, there is probably no harm in proceeding as is.

[Ballot discuss]
I have reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-05. Overall, the document
looks good, but I have the following concerns that I'd like to discuss
before recommending approval of the document:

The document seems to assume that a pointer to a transport protocol
spec (e.g. RFC 4340 for DCCP or RFC 2960 for SCTP) is enough to
describe how to use it with RPC. I'm not sure that's always the
case. For example, RFC 1831 specifies record marking for TCP. With
SCTP, you could either use the same approach (as is done in some
protocols over SCTP), or SCTP's own fragmentation. With DCCP, you need
to know the "Service Code" (in addition to IP address/port number) to
open a connection. And there may be other details, too.

In particular, are there existing implementations of dccp/dccp6 and
sctp/sctp6?  If not, consider leaving their registration later.  If
yes, is there any written documentation about how they use DCCP/SCTP?
(For the tcp/tcp6 entries, I'd also suggest adding a pointer to RFC 1831)


Another question: Section 4.2 says "All requests for assignments to the
format registry on a Standards Action basis must undergo Expert Review
and must be approved by IESG".  Expert Review+IESG Approval is one
possible IANA policy for this registry, but it's not the same as
Standards Action. Please clarify which is meant.

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
registry "ONC RPC Netids" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures:

Netids can be up to 2^32 - 1 octets in length. However, to ensure
that practical values for Standards Track protocols are not
exhausted, the values of netids one to eight octets long should be
used for netids assigned on the Standards Action basis. Assignments
made on a First Come First Served basis should be assigned netids of
length 9 to 128 octets long. All netids, regardless of length, that
start with the prefixes "STDS" or "FCFS" are Reserved, in order to
extend the name space of either basis. In addition, to give IESG the
flexibility in the future to permit Private and Experimental Uses,
all netids with the prefixes "PRIV" or "EXPE" are Reserved. The zero
length netid is Reserved. Some exceptions are listed in Table 2. A
recommended convention for netids corresponding to transports that
work over the IPv6 protocol is to have "6" as the last character in
the netid's name.

All netids, regardless of length, that
start with the prefixes "STDS" or "FCFS" are Reserved, in order to
extend the name space of either basis. In addition, to give IESG the
flexibility in the future to permit Private and Experimental Uses,
all netids with the prefixes "PRIV" or "EXPE" are Reserved. The zero
length netid is Reserved. Some exceptions are listed in Table 2. A
recommended convention for netids corresponding to transports that
work over the IPv6 protocol is to have "6" as the last character in
the netid's name.

Since netids are not constructed in an explicit hierarchical manner,
this document does not provide for Hierarchical Allocation of netids.
Nonetheless, the octet "." in a netid string is Reserved for future
possible provision of Hierarchical Allocation.

Initial contents of this registry will be:

(PoC == Point of Contact, CR = Cross Reference to uaddr format)

FCFS Entries:

+-------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----+----+


| Netid | Constant | Description and/or | PoC | CR |



| | Name | Reference | | |


+-------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----+----+


| "-" | NC_NOPROTO | RFC1833 [2], | | 1 |



| | | Section 3.2.3.2 of | | |
| | | [RFC-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03] | | |



| "ticlts" | NC_TICLTS | The loop back | | 0 |



| | | connectionless transport | | |
| | | used in System V Release | | |
| | | 4 and other operating | | |
| | | systems. Although this | | |
| | | assignment is made on a | | |
| | | First Come First Served | | |
| | | basis and is fewer than 9 | | |
| | | characters long, the | | |
| | | exception is authorized. | | |
| | | See [8]. | | |



| "ticots" | NC_TICOTS | The loop back | | 0 |



| | | connection-oriented | | |
| | | transport used in System | | |
| | | V Release 4 and other | | |
| | | operating systems. See | | |
| | | [8]. Although this | | |
| | | assignment is made on a | | |
| | | First Come First Served | | |
| | | basis and is fewer than 9 | | |
| | | characters long, the | | |
| | | exception is authorized. | | |



| "ticotsord" | NC_TICOTSORD | The loop back | | 0 |



| | | connection-oriented with | | |
| | | orderly-release transport | | |
| | | used in System V Release | | |
| | | 4 and other operating | | |
| | | systems. See [8]. | | |


+-------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----+----+

Standards Entries:

+---------+--------------+------------------------------+------+----+


| Netid | Constant | RFC(s) and Description (if | PoC | CR |



| | Name | needed) | | |


+---------+--------------+------------------------------+------+----+


| "dccp" | NC_DCCP | RFC4340 [9] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "dccp6" | NC_DCCP6 | RFC4340 [9] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "icmp" | NC_ICMP | RFC0777 [12] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 4 |
| "icmp6" | NC_ICMP6 | RFC0777 [12] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 4 |
| "rdma" | NC_RDMA | RFCTBD1 [6] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "rdma6" | NC_RDMA6 | RFCTBD1 [6] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "sctp" | NC_SCTP | RFC2960 [13] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "sctp6" | NC_SCTP6 | RFC2960 [13] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "tcp" | NC_TCP | RFC0675 [14] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "tcp6" | NC_TCP6 | RFC0675 [14] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "udp" | NC_UDP | RFC0768 [15] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "udp6" | NC_UDP6 | RFC0768 [15] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |


+---------+--------------+------------------------------+------+----+


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
registry "ONC RPC Uaddr Format Registry" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures:

All assignments to the format registry are made on one of two bases:

o First Come First Served basis per section 4.1 of [7].

o Standards Action per section 4.1 of [7].

All requests for assignments to the format registry must undergo
Expert Review. All requests for assignments made on a Standards
Action basis must be approved by IESG.

Initial contents of this registry will be:

+-------+-----------------------------------------------+------+----+


| Basis | Description and/or Reference | PoC | CR |


+-------+-----------------------------------------------+------+----+


| FCFS | System V Release 4 loopback transport uaddr | | 0 |



| | format. Section 3.2.3.1 of [RFC-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03]| | |



| FCFS | Uaddr format for NC_NOPROTO. Section 3.2.3.2 | | 1 |



| | of [RFC-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03] | | |



| STDS | Uaddr format for IPv4 transports. | IESG | 2 |



| | Section 3.2.3.3 of [RFC-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03] | | |



| STDS | Uaddr format for IPv6 transports. | IESG | 3 |



| | Section 3.2.3.4 of [RFC-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03] | | |



| STDS | Uaddr formation for ICMP. Section 3.2.3.5 of | IESG | 4 |



| | [RFC-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03] | | |


+-------+-----------------------------------------------+------+----+


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed
the documents and believes they are ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes, the document has received appropriate review and
there are no outstanding concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
the interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

No additional concerns or review actions are needed.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is strong consensus for this document's content.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No opposition exists.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are
not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for
their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these
downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure
for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?

N/A

Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

If the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations?

Yes.

Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?

Yes.

If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

N/A

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

N/A

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This Internet-Draft lists IANA Considerations for RPC Network
Identifiers (netids) and RPC Universal Network Addresses
(uaddrs). This Internet-Draft updates, but does not replace,
RFC1833.

Working Group Summary

In support of the RDMA Transport for ONC RPC Internet Draft
and other users of ONC RPC based protocols, registries of
netids and universal network addresses are described and the
procedure established for future registration. This is a
step forward in the support of varying transport types and
protocol extensions.

Document Quality

This document captures current registrations and allows for
equitable future extension such that established
implementations are protected in an environment of
integrating new transport types.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd For this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Spencer Shepler. Spencer has reviewed
the documents and believes they are ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes, the document has received appropriate review and
there are no outstanding concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
the interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

No additional concerns or review actions are needed.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is strong consensus for this document's content.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No opposition exists.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are
not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for
their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these
downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure
for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?

N/A

Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

If the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations?

Yes.

Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?

Yes.

If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

N/A

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

N/A

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This Internet-Draft lists IANA Considerations for RPC Network
Identifiers (netids) and RPC Universal Network Addresses
(uaddrs). This Internet-Draft updates, but does not replace,
RFC1833.

Working Group Summary

In support of the RDMA Transport for ONC RPC Internet Draft
and other users of ONC RPC based protocols, registries of
netids and universal network addresses are described and the
procedure established for future registration. This is a
step forward in the support of varying transport types and
protocol extensions.

Document Quality

This document captures current registrations and allows for
equitable future extension such that established
implementations are protected in an environment of
integrating new transport types.